Allen Boyd

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. So, Mr. Chairman, we have a situation where the current agricultural policy is costing this Treasury more than it ever has in the past. As a matter of fact, in the 4 years since we have had Freedom to Farm, we have spent more money out of the Treasury trying to sustain our agricultural industry. Mr. Chairman, it is a national security issue. We should not allow this agricultural industry to be weakened, because we never want to rely upon another country for our food supply. Mr. Chairman, this bill I think is the best that we can do, given the limited resources that we have. I am concerned about the fact that the subcommittee worked its will, the full committee worked its will, it went to the Committee on Rules, and now all of the rules have been changed, some of the sanctions language that was put in there will now be removed, and I do not think that is the way we should operate. So I do have some concerns about that, however. But my larger concern is about the national agricultural policy we have in place today.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, as a Member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies, I appreciate the support of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) for this project that the gentleman from Florida is speaking of. It is of high priority to the Florida State University in the Second Congressional District of Florida.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), my friend, and distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen), who knows very well that the committee report language is taken very seriously on the Committee on Appropriations. I share the gentleman's concern that the Department has not complied with the clear intent of the committee and Congress.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to say that I did not invoke a partisan tint to my comments. And I would like to remind the gentleman that it is the administration who has worked very hard on Fast Track, and it is the administration that worked very hard on PNTR and these other trade agreements. I would like to remind the gentleman that those are divisive issues on this floor. Many Republicans and many Democrats both were against them, but it was not the administration that was against them. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind the gentleman of that.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I would like to remind the gentleman, and the Congress also, that we, the subcommittee and the full committee, addressed those issues in our bill and that language has been stricken when it arrived at the Committee on Rules by the majority leadership of this Congress. And so I just wanted to remind the gentleman; I want to be certain he is aware of that.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 minutes. But I want to continue the discussion between the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner). It is a very important discussion. I would just like to say that I think there is agreement in the agricultural community all across this Nation that our rural markets are very critical to us to agriculture being successful. But where there is not agreement, and I would dispute what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) said, the farm policy that was put in place by this Congress, the 104th Congress in 1996, is not working. It is not working in many parts of the country. It may be working in certain parts of the country. But it is important for the future national security of this country that our agriculture industry stays strong, and it will not stay strong under this current farm policy without huge influxes of cash from the Federal Treasury. That is what we want to avoid.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I want to remind the Members, Mr. Chairman, that the reason this money is in there is because we, because of our trade policy and the opening of our markets and our ports, we have many very serious invasive pest issues that we are dealing with in this country. I will give a couple of specific examples. In Florida right now we are under severe attack from citrus canker. The source was a tree that was brought in through the Miami airport. Right now, this Federal Government is going to be spending millions and millions and millions of dollars to try to eradicate this disease. The only way that we can get rid of it is destroy the tree. It is spreading in at a very rapid pace. In the process, it is destroying the citrus industry in Florida and bankrupting many of the folks who have been in the citrus business down there for hundreds and hundreds of years. There are other examples, as I am sure have been referenced in this debate. Pierce's disease in the grape industry, plum pox in the Northeast, the African hot water tick is another example of an invasive pest which has been found in this country which has the capability of destroying totally the livestock industry, including the wild deer population. I need to remind the gentleman that we did not become the world's greatest economy, including agriculture and other industries, by sitting on our hands when it comes to research; and this basic research to solve these problems has to be done by the Government. One of the things that we have done in the last 5 years that has not served us very well is to cut back in many of these areas within the Department of Agriculture and its funding. So I would very strongly oppose the amendment.

Mr. BOYD. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, and I would remind the gentleman and others who have the same interest that this is one Member who sits on that committee and would be glad to work with anybody from any part of the country if they have a specific problem. We intend to earmark a lot of this money, and rightfully so; and we have taken into consideration those folks, like the gentleman, who have specific problems.

Mr. BOYD. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to say that unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I do not control the whole process. I would be glad to work with the gentleman to solve his specific problem.

Mr. BOYD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to again compliment my friend, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) in the way that he handles the committee. He and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member, do a wonderful job of trying to address the issues and deal with the priorities that the Federal Government and this specific subcommittee should deal with. I want the Members, Mr. Chairman, to understand where our priorities should be in terms of the work of this subcommittee. The people of this Nation and the businesses of this Nation, specifically the agriculture business, expect the Federal Government to protect its borders. That is a basic criteria or basic function of the Federal Government, to protect its borders. These invasive species that we have been talking about this morning, we need to understand they are called invasive species because they come from other places, they are not indigenous to this country. They come into this country through the ports. They might be brought in in a commercial business transaction, or they might be brought in by a tourist that is visiting from another country or somebody who has left this country to go and then comes back. The species that we have heard about, the Asian longhorned beetle, the Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter, plum pox, Citrus Canker, the African hard-water tick all have come from other countries through our borders, through our ports. It is the obligation, the responsibility, of this Federal Government to protect those borders; and we are not doing a very good job of it right now. That is what the amendment of the gentlewoman attempts to do is to find more money so we could do a better job. We just dealt with the research side. We know that we have to continue to do the research to find preventive measures or cures for these problems. But right now we are working on the APHIS part, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. So I would encourage the body to let us find this additional money. I know it is not the wish of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the kind chairman, that we do not have more money here. It was not his decision. But that was the allocation that he was given, and so he is having to work with what he has. But I think this body can express its will and come up with more money to protect its borders, and that is very important. Again, Mr. Chairman, the American people and its businesses, particularly the agricultural industry, we expect a good and clean and safe food supply; and it is under attack right now. I know more about the Citrus Canker issue than I do about any others. We have an $8 billion industry in Florida that is being threatened. It just so happens that the lime industry has already been wiped out, 3,000 acres of limes in Florida. There is a very small number of lime trees in California. But if we eat a lime or use a lime wedge in our martini from now on, we will get it from some other country because the lime industry in this country has been wiped out by Citrus Canker. And we have allowed that to happen because we have not protected our borders. That is what the amendment of the gentlewoman is trying to do, provide the funds and resources to protect our borders. I would encourage the body, this House of Representatives, to recognize that and find the money to do what she is trying to do. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I represent a district in North Florida that has been hit by a hurricane or tropical storm almost every year in recent history. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is the 911 service that we all rely on when disaster strikes. In order to ensure that FEMA has the resources necessary to provide relief to disaster victims, the administration and the Congress are supposed to set aside the sufficient funds to cover the average yearly cost for disasters for the last 5 years. This year, the administration did its job, and they requested $2.9 billion for FEMA to provide disaster relief. Now, this money is used to provide aid to families and individuals, clear debris, repair infrastructure damages to our communities, any damages that are caused by Presidentially declared natural disasters. Unfortunately, because of the completely unrealistic spending constraints placed on this bill, FEMA only received $300 million for disaster assistance in this bill. This is over $2.4 billion less than what was appropriated last year by this Congress and $2.6 billion less than the 5-year average that we should have placed in this account to ensure that FEMA has the resources that they need. Now, many of the opponents of this amendment will argue that we can quickly pass an emergency supplemental when disaster assistance is needed. Well, let us just take a look at how quickly supplementals move in this Congress. Five months ago, this House passed this year's emergency supplemental. We are still waiting on our colleagues in the Senate to act on this legislation. Is that the answer that my colleagues want to give a family who just lost everything in a natural disaster or to their community who just lost its infrastructure to a disaster. What happens when this money is needed and Congress has recessed during the election year and is back home campaigning in October or November? How long will it take for Congress to come back into session and enact a supplemental? Now, many of my fellow fiscally responsible colleagues will point out this is emergency spending and does not have offsets. That is true, it is. However, let us talk about the cost of supplementals. If we do not do this in the regular order and do it in emergency supplemental, we are likely to have a much larger price tag than the $2.6 billion that we are asking to refill this account. In other words, pay up now or pay a lot more later when we come back to do the emergency supplemental. The question is very simple. Are we going to admit that this money will be spent in the regular order of the appropriations process and provide the funding needed to meet ongoing emergency situations that we know are going to occur, or are we going to continue to play the budgetary games and pretend that we are not going to spend this money? If we choose the latter, we are fooling ourselves. I ask each of my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, this question: Do they want to tempt fate? We are going to have floods, fires, we have got fires in eight States going on right now, hurricanes and winter storms. Do my colleagues want to go home after a natural disaster hits and tell their people that help is on the way, or do they want to tell them they decided to play budget games with our future and did not provide FEMA with adequate resources? I urge my colleagues to do what is right for their constituents. I urge the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) to not insist upon his point of order. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any additional speakers at this point in time, so by way of closing, I would just like to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) for his statement. He is right. He and I have worked together on budgetary honesty, fiscal responsibility, and I think that most of the people of this Nation want their government to perform certain functions. But they also want their government to be honest and make sure that we understand that those functions are going to be paid for so that we do not have to come back later with smoke and mirrors or we do not have to borrow money to fund those particular functions. This is a function that this Federal Government will perform. When a disaster hits, whether it be a hurricane or a fire or a winter storm or a tornado, those natural disaster events occur all over this country every year, the Federal Government, through FEMA, will step up to assist those local communities and those families that have been affected. The 5-year average cost of that assistance is $2.9 billion, $2.9 billion, Mr. Chairman. We have appropriated about 10 percent of that money in this bill. I think that it is not being honest with the public in terms of doing our budget. We all know that later on we will come back and do this through a supplemental emergency appropriation. At that point in time, it is likely to cost us a lot more money. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim 30 seconds of the time that I have yielded back.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) who I think is one of the outstanding Members of this body and does a great job as chairman. I would like to say that the $1.7 billion that is in the pipeline now for FEMA, we have talked to FEMA about that. They expect that that will probably last through the end of the fiscal year and maybe through the end of the calendar year. But they expect soon after the end of this calendar year that they would be very nervous if we did not fill this pipeline again.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to the dedicated work of my constituents and one of Florida's finest educators. Debi Barrett- Hayes, has spent the past twenty years of her life working to enrich the minds of our youth by teaching Art to students from Kindergarten through 12th grade. Today, June 14, 2000, Debi Barrett-Hayes will be inducted into the National Teachers Hall of Fame. It is her invaluable commitment and dedication that we honor today. Ms. Barrett-Hayes is currently the Chair of the Visual Arts Department K-12 and a teacher of Visual Arts grades 9-12 with Florida State University School in Tallahassee, Florida. She has spent her entire career committed to the arts. Debi began as a graphic designer and freelance artist, then moved into the education field where she has stayed for the past twenty years. She has been teaching art to students of all levels, including the Primary, Secondary and University levels. Throughout her career, Ms. Barrett-Hayes has been honored with a variety of awards. Just this past year, he was given the Christa McAuliffe Fellowship Award. In 1996 she was named Florida Art Educator of the Year, and the year before Florida State University School also named her Teacher of the Year. Debi is also the National Art Education Association Secondary Division Director and was one of the first art teachers to obtain the status of National Board Certified Teacher. Her commitment to advocating the importance of art on the national level has been impressive throughout her career. She has successfully written numerous grant requests, and has brought in over $400,000 in additional funds for her school district. Conducting over 300 workshops and being invited to speak on the state, national and international level certainly distinguishes her remarkable career. The greatest reflection of an educator's career is when they are recognized by their peers and students. Countless colleagues, parents and students have eagerly stepped forward to praise the work of Debi Barrett-Hayes. They are impressed with her rapport with students and with her ability to integrate art into the lives of those she teaches. She uses history, science and culture to bring about a greater understanding of the visual arts. Other impressive attributes to her career are the successes her students experience through the awards and scholarships they have received for their talents. The need for caring and effective educators in today's society is extremely important, and honoring those who have dedicated their lives to reinforcing a system of quality education is why we honor them. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we join Debi Barrett-Hayes' family, colleagues, students and friends in honoring her as she is inducted into the National Teachers Hall of Fame.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the dedicated work of my constituent and one of Florida's finest educators. Debi Barrett-Hayes, has spent the past twenty years of her life working to enrich the minds of our youth by teaching Art to students from Kindergarten through 12th grade. Today, June 14, 2000, Debi Barrett- Hayes will be inducted into the National Teachers Hall of Fame. It is her invaluable commitment and dedication that we honor today. Ms. Barrett-Hayes is currently the Chair of the Visual Arts Department K-12 and a teacher of Visual Arts grades 9-12 with Florida State University School in Tallahassee, Florida. She has spent her entire career committed to the arts. Debi began as a graphic designer and freelance artist, then moved into the education field where she has stayed for the past twenty years. She has been teaching art to students of all levels, including the Primary, Secondary and University levels. Throughout her career, Ms. Barrett-Hayes has been honored with a variety of awards. Just this past year, she was given the Christa McAuliffe Fellowship Award. In 1996 she was named Florida Art Educator of the Year, and the year before Florida State University School also named her Teacher of the Year. Debi is also the National Art Education Association Secondary Division Director and was one of the first art teachers to obtain the status of National Board Certified Teacher. Her commitment to advocating the importance of art on the national level has been impressive throughout her career. She has successfully written numerous grant requests, and has brought in over $400,000 in additional funds for her school district. Conducting over 300 workshops and being invited to speak on the state, national and international level certainly distinguishes her remarkable career. The greatest reflection of an educator's career is when they are recognized by their peers and students. Countless colleagues, parents and students have eagerly stepped forward to praise the work of Debi Barrett-Hayes. They are impressed with her rapport with students and with her ability to integrate art into the lives of those she teaches. She uses history, science and culture to bring about a greater understanding of the visual arts. Other impressive attributes to her career are the successes her students experience through the awards and scholarships they have received for their talents. The need for caring and effective educators in today's society is extremely important, and honoring those who have dedicated their lives to reinforcing a system of quality education is why I rise today. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we join Debi Barrett-Hayes' family, colleagues, students and friends in honoring her as she is inducted into the National Teachers Hall of Fame.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, every year on Memorial Day, small replicas of our Star-Spangled Banner appear in cemeteries across our Nation. They mark the final resting places of those who gave their lives to defend the helpless, to let democracy flower around the world, and to defend the freedoms and liberties we enjoy as Americans. These honored dead have not died in vain, as Abraham Lincoln solemnly pledged during the most divisive, soul-rending war this nation had yet faced. We have a long, proud history of service and sacrifice given by those men and women who quit the safety of everyday life and friends ``to hazard all in freedom's fight.'' Today, we have such men and women deployed around the world, and we hold them and their families in our hearts and prayers. That oath to defend the Constitution has been sworn by every soldier, sailor, flyer, and Marine, living and dead. On Memorial Day, we recall with bittersweet fondness, those who gave everything to preserve the security and liberty of those they loved and those they never knew. What wonderful people we have lost! What gifts might they have given the world, had war not shortened their lives! And yet they gave the dearest gifts they had, and now they lie beneath small flags of red, white and blue in grassy fields all around us. We have honored their graves and their lives on Memorial Day since the end of our own Civil War. In 1866, spontaneous rites of remembrance were held in Carbondale, IL, in Columbus, MS, and Waterloo, NY. The families of the men killed in that war came together to place flowers by their gravestones. The veterans joined this practice, honoring their fallen comrades with their own recollections of courage and devotion on stricken fields. Ever since then, veterans and their families have led the observance of Memorial Day. There have been times, during and right after wars, when most Americans have known some of these honored dead. Those who defend this country, after all, are men and women from every town and every walk of life. They are as ordinary as the earth they lie beneath, and more precious than diamonds. But in prolonged times of peace, children are born and grow up never knowing anybody who fell in war. While peace is an immeasurable blessing, not to have known any of these honored dead is a loss. Some feel it in never knowing a father or other relative lost in combat. Others have no connection beyond gratitude. Memorial Day brings that connection to our consciousness. On this day we are all aware of the service so many have given this Nation, and of what risk those who defend this nation share. This is a day, I would hope only one of many, on which the living remember and salute those who served our Nation in uniform and now lie at eternal rest. On this Memorial Day, I would like to remember two fallen heroes from the Second Congressional District of Florida, which I have the distinct honor of representing in the House of Representatives. Air Force Master Sgt. Sherry Lynn Olds, of Panama City and Marine Sgt. Jesse N. Aliganga, of Tallahassee, made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country. These soldiers were two of 12 Americans that gave their lives in the August 7th, 1998, terrorist bombing of the United States Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. On this day, we honor them and the many others that have gone before them, and the contributions all of them have made for us. Service of this country in uniform has been, since the beginning, one of the greatest sources of unity and equality, in our national life. More than half a century ago, President Franklin Roosevelt reminded the American people that, ``Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time that men have died to win them.'' I hope on this Memorial Day 2000, we as a nation, and each of us as individuals, will take to heart President Roosevelt's reminder that it is the sacred duty and great privilege of the living to honor and remember those who have died to protect the American ideals of freedom, democracy, and liberty. The men and women who have died in service to America and to all of us deserve no less.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, military retirees were promised a ``lifetime of free medical care'' in exchange for serving honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces for a minimum of 20 years. Although used by the services for decades as an effective recruitment and retention tool, this promise has no basis in law. Regrettably, our nation's failure to honor the ``promise of health care'' is a contributing factor to the critical retention and recruiting problems our armed services currently face. In 1956, after the Korean War, only 11 percent of the eligible military medical beneficiaries were either retirees, their dependents, or survivors of former service men and women. At that time, existing military medical facilities were capable of serving these individuals. However, today, 52 percent of military medical beneficiaries are retirees and their family members. This growth in the military retiree population, along with recent base closures, has severely limited the ability of our government to provide them with direct care. The Federal Government has fallen short of its commitment to the men and women who have served our Nation in the armed services Demographic changes over the last several decades have led to an explosion in the number of military retirees, dramatically increasing the cost of providing health care to these individuals. While our Government could not have anticipated the factors which produced this problem, we must take action to ensure our military retirees receive the adequate care they deserve. The Taylor amendment would expand and make permanent an existing Department of Defense (DoD) TRICARE Senior Prime demonstration program, more commonly known as Medical Subvention. Under Medicare Subvention, the costs of providing health care to Medicare-eligible military retirees who receive treatment at military medical facilities are reimbursed to the DoD by the Health Care Financing Administration. As many of my colleagues know, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 created a Medicare Subvention demonstration project under which six military treatment sites were organized as Medicare+Choice plans and have enrolled and treated military retirees and their dependents 65 and over. This Demonstration will end December 31, 2000. The Demonstration Project has been a success. There are long waiting lists to enroll at several of the sites. The number of retirees enrolling when they turn 65 is much higher than DoD expected. GAO reported that some retirees joined Tricare Prime at age 64 to be eligible to age-in to Tricare Senior Prime. The disenrollment rate is much lower than those of almost all Medicare managed care plans. Enrollees in Tricare Senior Prime are guaranteed continuity of care at military health facilities. The current ``Space Available'' care cannot ensure that a retiree can see his cardiologist or other physician when he needs an appointment. The health needs of the over 65 population cannot wait for ``space available.'' Medicare Subvention is needed to replace the Space Available policy as soon as possible. Our men and women in uniform have earned and deserve quality health care for themselves and their families. Congress must take immediate action to live up to the medical care commitment the government made to our service men and women and their families. Though the Taylor Amendment does not take care of the entire military retiree population, it is a good first step to addressing this duty we have to take care of our nation's career service men and women. I urge your strong support of this important amendment.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, on March 22, 2000, I was unavoidably detained, causing me to miss roll call votes 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 and 63. I ask that the Record reflect that had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 58, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 59, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 60, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 61, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 62, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 63.